lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: unify the check on atomic sleeping in __might_sleep() and schedule_bug()
On 09/14/2012 11:02 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 09/13/2012 06:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 10:40 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>> From: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com> has reported the bug:
>>>
>>> [ 0.043953] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/1/0x10000002
>>> [ 0.044017] no locks held by swapper/0/1.
>>> [ 0.044692] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.6.0-rc1-00420-gb7aebb9 #34
>>> [ 0.045861] Call Trace:
>>> [ 0.048071] [<c106361e>] __schedule_bug+0x5e/0x70
>>> [ 0.048890] [<c1b28701>] __schedule+0x91/0xb10
>>> [ 0.049660] [<c14472ea>] ? vsnprintf+0x33a/0x450
>>> [ 0.050444] [<c1060006>] ? lg_local_lock+0x6/0x70
>>> [ 0.051256] [<c14fb5b1>] ? wait_for_xmitr+0x31/0x90
>>> [ 0.052019] [<c144fd55>] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xa5/0xf0
>>> [ 0.052903] [<c1b2a532>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x22/0x30
>>> [ 0.053759] [<c105cdbb>] ? up+0x1b/0x70
>>> [ 0.054421] [<c1065d6b>] __cond_resched+0x1b/0x30
>>> [ 0.055228] [<c1b292d5>] _cond_resched+0x45/0x50
>>> [ 0.056020] [<c1b26c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x28/0x370
>>> [ 0.056884] [<c1034222>] ? console_unlock+0x3a2/0x4e0
>>> [ 0.057741] [<c1ac8559>] __irq_alloc_descs+0x39/0x1c0
>>> [ 0.058589] [<c10223bc>] io_apic_setup_irq_pin+0x2c/0x310
>>> [ 0.060042] [<c20638df>] setup_IO_APIC+0x101/0x744
>>> [ 0.060878] [<c1021d51>] ? clear_IO_APIC+0x31/0x50
>>> [ 0.061695] [<c20600f4>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x538/0x680
>>> [ 0.062644] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
>>> [ 0.063517] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
>>> [ 0.064016] [<c2056adc>] kernel_init+0x4b/0x17f
>>> [ 0.064790] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
>>> [ 0.065660] [<c1b2bbd6>] kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10
>>>
>>> It was caused by that:
>>>
>>> native_smp_prepare_cpus()
>>> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
>>> mutex_lock() //in __irq_alloc_descs
>>> __might_sleep() //system is booting, avoid check
>>> might_resched()
>>> __schedule()
>>> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
>>> schedule_bug() //preempt_count > 1, report bug
>>>
>>> The __might_sleep() avoid check on atomic sleeping until the system booted
>>> while the schedule_bug() doesn't, it's the reason for the bug.
>>>
>>> This patch will add one additional check in schedule_bug() to avoid check
>>> until the system booted, so the check on atomic sleeping will be unified.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Tested-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ++-
>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> index 4376c9f..3396c33 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> @@ -3321,7 +3321,8 @@ static inline void schedule_debug(struct task_struct *prev)
>>> * schedule() atomically, we ignore that path for now.
>>> * Otherwise, whine if we are scheduling when we should not be.
>>> */
>>> - if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state))
>>> + if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state
>>> + && system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING))
>>> __schedule_bug(prev);
>>> rcu_sleep_check();
>>>
>>
>>
>> No this is very very wrong.. we avoid the might_sleep bug on !
>> SYSTEM_RUNNING because while we _might_ sleep, we should _never_
>> actually sleep under those conditions.
>>
>> So hitting a schedule() here is an actual bug.
>
> I see, so the rule is that we never allowed invoke schedule() with
> preempt disabled.
>
> The actual reason trigger this bug is that:
> we invoke irq_alloc_descs() which will use mutex_lock() while
> !SYSTEM_RUNNING.
> And mutex_lock() invoke the might_sleep(), which do the schedule()
> without any warning.
>
> So if we want to follow the rule, should_resched() should never return
> true if preempt disabled.
>
> I think we could do changes like:
>
>
>
> index c46a011..36fe510 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -4209,7 +4209,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE0(sched_yield)
>
> static inline int should_resched(void)
> {
> - return need_resched() && !(preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> + return need_resched() && !preempt_count();
> }
>
> static void __cond_resched(void)
>
>
>
> Then the should_resched() will return false when the preempt disabled or
> PREEMPT_ACTIVE bit is on.
>
> Could we use this solution?

Let me send out the patch so we could have a thread to discuss, but
please warn me if it's a totally foolish one...

Regards,
Michael Wang

>
> Regards,
> Michael Wang
>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>>
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-17 04:41    [W:0.124 / U:0.916 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site